Posted on 03/15/2004 9:30:22 AM PST by conservativecorner
DRUDGE REPORT this morning lists the occupying force numbers for the individual countries in Iraq. Although Drudge, being a yellow journalist, uses the term "sizable hole" for what the Spaniards will leave when they depart, they are at 1300 soldiers presently less than one percent of the force. placing them at number six on the list between the Ukraine at 1600 and the Netherlands at 1100. Their departure will be largely symbolic.
Of course the level of that symbolism is the important question. And what transpires from here on out is wildly unpredictable. Although Francis Fukuyama and others told us history was at its end, clearly they were dreaming (Who can blame them?-ed.). Despite a temporary victory in the Spanish election, this action may prove to have been the Islamofascists biggest mistake. They may have checkmated themselves. What do they do next? One more similar act in Europe or the USA may turn the majority of the Western world Jacksonian. We shall see, I'm afraid.
UPDATE: Meanwhile (hat tips: Mike and Rick Ballard), Poland is standing firm: "Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorists attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks)," Prime Minister Leszek Miller told a news conference in the Polish town of Tarnow. More to come--obviously.
Huh? And this excuses the Spanish giving into the terrorists how? Look it is right there in black and white. Spain was attacked. A plurality of the Spanish electorate blamed the government fighting terrorism and not the terrorists. Those are the facts.
These aren't "rationalizations," either. I've got no reason to defend Spanish voters in any way -- I'm simply pointing out the sanctimonious hypocrisy of people in this country who are so quick to point out the splinter in someone else's eye without first addressing the beam in our own.
Maybe you are right, they aren't rationalizations, but sanctimonious blather about the real world fact that the Spanish electorate sent a dangerous message that terrorism works.
BTW, when was the last time a Puerto Rican terrorist group has struck and do you think that Bush or any other Republican President would pardon them.
How does one impeach a president for using one of his constitutional powers i.e. that of pardon?
Actually the lesson is not to follow the euro weenie principle of appeasment and hold up politicans such as Aznar for their bravery to do the right thing.
I can't help it if 43% of the Spanish electorate is willing to slit their wrists at the altar of al-queda.
Aznar is a person who should get the "profile in courage" award awarded by the Kennedy's, of course they won't, since he was on the "evil" side of fighting terrorism.
BTW, when was the last time a Puerto Rican terrorist group has struck . . .
There are any number of reasons why Puerto Rican terrorists have not carried out any attacks here in the U.S. over the last 20 years. I'll give you two possible ones: 1) Their leaders have all been in jail; and 2) the U.S. has effectively quelled the separatist movement by providing Puerto Rico with a number of financial benefits that have allowed it to enjoy a standard of living far higher than it would have as an independent nation.
. . . and do you think that Bush or any other Republican President would pardon them?
That's not really the right question. The real question is whether any U.S. president would pardon terrorists, and we already know what the answer is. The truth of the matter is that a Republican-controlled House of Representatives refused to do a damn thing about it.
Since the impeachment of a sitting president is essentially a political proceeding (rather than a legal one), he can be impeached for any reason whatsoever. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that would prevent the House from issuing articles of impeachment against a president just because they didn't like the color of his hair.
The reality of the FALN case is this: if a president who grants clemency to people who were involved in 130 bombing attacks in the United States is not guilty of treason, then nobody is under any obligation to obey any laws in this country anymore.
Because they just sent out a call to the terrorists that terrorism works and more innocent blood will be spilled because of the Spanish appeasement.
That's not really the right question. The real question is whether any U.S. president would pardon terrorists, and we already know what the answer is. The truth of the matter is that a Republican-controlled House of Representatives refused to do a damn thing about it
Uh it is in the Constitution that a President can pardon anyone he wants. Hopefully the US will not elect another person who will use the act of pardoning so brazenly.
OK, then let's let the Bush administration call Spain's bluff on this one. Recall the U.S. ambassador from Madrid, send the Spanish ambassador in Washington out on the next flight from Dulles Airport, and have the U.S. State Department issue strict travel restrictions prohibiting anyone from entering the U.S. from Spain.
If the recent election in Spain is the disaster that everyone here seems to think it is, then anything short of these measures would seem to be inadequate.
When the real war starts, everyone will be in it. There won't be any civilians.
Most historians will tell you that Andrew Johnson's impeachment had absolutely no legal basis. The "law" that Congress used to impeach him was later thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court as a gross violation of the separation of Federal powers.
But that was a mistake, and 911 should have showed the world that capitulating there, in the African Embassies, the first trade center bombing, the USS Cole etc were all mistakes. We learned from our mistakes, and the electorate did the opposite of your example in the 02 elections.
You need look no further than New York City to see this phenomenon at work. People in places all over this country that weren't directly impacted by 9/11 were the strongest supporters of this so-called "war on terror," long after the New York City Council had already concluded that cigarette smoke was the greatest threat to the city's existence.
You are irresponsibly mixing issues to portray an illusion of NY City being over 911. Link to where anyone said cigarette's were NY's "greatest threat". I doubt any politician of any ideology would marginalize the threat of terrorism as you are trying to say they have. When you overstate your case, because of whatever agenda you have against this so-called "war on terror" you lose credability.
So you are now agreeing with the Democrats that the impeachment of Clinton was essentially a political proceeding? I disagree, he was impeached because he committed a crime. This is what the Constitution says about impeachment in Article II, Section 4:
"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Impeachment is clearly a legal proceeding resulting from a criminal offence.
A simple question. Do the results of Sunday's election in Spain helps terrorism or hurt it.
My answer is that it helps terrorism for the Spanish electorate let a terrorist attack sway them to vote for a political party that has basically publicly stated that the War on Terrorism is futile.
I do agree with the Democrats that the impeachment was a "political" proceeding. What they never pointed out, though, was that their defense of Clinton was nothing more than a political proceeding as well.
But let's forget about New York City for the moment, and go right to the U.S. government itself. Since this country began fighting this so-called "war on terror," we have seen Congress debate military funding of the effort to no end. But Congress was nearly unanimous in passing a national "Do Not Call" law, and had no problem coughing up $400+ billion for prescription drug coverage for seniors.
Does this sound like a nation at war? Is there any reason for us to be surprised that terrorism now sits at #3 on the list of voters' priorities in this country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.